| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Report: Russian navy to get at least 3 carriers |
| 2009-02-28 |
| MOSCOW - A Russian news agency is reporting that an admiral said the navy may commission at least three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. RIA-Novosti has quoted Vice Adm. Anatoly Shlemov as saying that engineers have begun work to design a new carrier. Shlemov said Friday the prospective carriers will be nuclear-powered and have a displacement of 50,000-60,000 tons, according to the report. His statement appeared to contradict comments by Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov that the navy should focus on smaller ships, no bigger than frigates or corvettes. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #20 And we've paid for that expertise in blood. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-02-28 22:48 |
| #19 For the uninitiated, DC means "damage control." We and the Brits and maybe the Germans are masters of this skill. RKC ET1SS |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2009-02-28 18:10 |
| #18 OP, you forgot to mention the state of DC and their construction that is not conducive to DC efforts. The US Navy excels at DC, and constructs its ships to survive. The Russian Navy and its vessels are not set up that way. Smaller crews, fewer bulkheads, etc. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-02-28 17:00 |
| #17 I watched this puppy being built. Let's just say that crew comfort is not a consideration of the Russian Navy. The "island" underwent three modification before the ship was launched. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-02-28 16:42 |
| #16 Russian carrier doctrine is very different from ours. They see their carriers as defensive, not offensive platforms. Remember, too, that the Admiral Kuznetsov has vertical launch cells! |
| Posted by: Plastic Snoopy 2009-02-28 14:11 |
| #15 My wife's comment on the video of the planes landing was "What are they doing - practicing touch and go?". I said that I thought they had just missed the wire(s). There is not a lot of room for error in a carrier landing, especially with a short deck like the Kusnetzov. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-02-28 13:18 |
| #14 Udaloy ? Dunno. It ain't worth a thing, if it ain't got no wings. |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-02-28 11:32 |
| #13 Nice footage thar BadMan, especially like the shots of the escorts (Udaloy ?) in heavy seas. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2009-02-28 11:17 |
| #12 Video |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-02-28 07:40 |
| #11 Somewhere I have video of flight operations aboard the Kuznetsov I downloaded from Venik Russian aviation page. Iffin anyone has a link,please post it. That carrier was designed around the aircraft it was s'posed to carry the Yak-38 jump jet, a small light VSTOL jet aircraft. The aircraft they were trying to move in and out of bays were navalized MiG-29s and the navalized SU-25UTG, ( formerly designated the SU-25UM) both of which Russian sailors could barely move through the bulkheads, the openings were too small, probably built for the YAK. Russian AEW aircraft consists of the KA-31 Helix, standard Russian navy helo fitted with a medium range radar, low tech and vulnerable. At the moment the Russians have no long range navalized aircraft capable of airborne early warning, such as our venerable E-2C "Hawkeye" The Russian Navy is a littoral force. Russian defense doctrine stretching back hundreds of years is that the homeland is what is to be defended. Even with carriers I seriously doubt Russians would want them to sail very far from their shores,no power projection, no blue water operations, not especially against the US which has 70 years and counting of experience with carrier operations. Most Russian naval aviation operations will still, as long as there is a Russian, operate from Russia,s very shores. |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-02-28 07:26 |
| #10 Excellent! Keep the Russians spending their money on useless crap like aircraft carriers, nukes, and boomers, and less on actual useful things like UAV development and combat robots. |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-02-28 02:33 |
| #9 So these carriers will be slightly larger than the Wasp-class LHDs, of which the US has 8 in service, along with 3 Tarawa-class LHAs. That does NOT count the Nimitz class carriers. The US Marine Corps has effectively 4 times the projected carrier strength of the Russians and about 60 years more experience with them. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2009-02-28 02:11 |
| #8 They can operate both navalized MiG-29s and SU-27s. Without catapults the aircraft are lightly fueled and loaded. Kuznetsov |
| Posted by: ed 2009-02-28 01:35 |
| #7 And for each carrier, a squadron of open sea tug boats. |
| Posted by: Penguin 2009-02-28 01:33 |
| #6 Would a carrier this size be capable of operating modern naval jets like the F-18 or navalized MiG-29, or are they strictly for jump jets, etc? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-02-28 01:26 |
| #5 These are half the displacement tonnage of US carriers, and only about a quarter of the effectiveness. They will be nice for showing the flag, but not all that useful in actual use against a modern AF or Navy of any significant size. Blue-water operations are not for faint of heart, nor for the inexperienced and untrained. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-02-28 00:59 |
| #4 They owe India that sub but it is looked at as cursed now after it drouned everyone onboard in fire retardant. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-02-28 00:53 |
| #3 Go git 'em Ivan. Less money available for SSBNs. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-02-28 00:45 |
| #2 "...And it'll have ponies - lots of ponies!!" Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-02-28 00:30 |
| #1 What about the one they owe India? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-02-28 00:20 |